(Some details missed in the previous post.)
Before World War III:
games theory was used in military work;
big computers analyzed complex phenomena like business, generating some understanding of economics;
communications theory was found to be generally applicable because human beings are symbolizing animals;
the least effort axiom was also helpful;
in the emergent mathematical and paramathematical system, elements like potentials and gradients equatable to observable phenomena make derivable theorems possible.
The military defeat mentioned in the previous post must have been in World War III.
Since World War III, conditions remain confused and controlled experiments with human beings are impossible. However, data confirm theories and economic cycles have become predictable.
Research continued and the first politicomathematical analyses were performed in the theocratic period due to the threat of the Mongku Empire which the Martians destroyed. World War IV sank the Japanese islands.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
If controlled experiments using human beings are impossible, that alone should discredit any self proclaimed "science of mankind."
Sean
Sean,
It certainly makes such "sciences" far less precise. But political campaigners put their ideas to the test of practice and experience. In Britain, a leading theoretician of one small left group said in effect, "The unjust and inequitable poll tax will or should [I am not quite sure which] be defeated by council workers taking industrial action and refusing to implement the tax." Meanwhile, a smaller left group spearheaded a non-payment campaign with some individuals even spending a few days in prison instead of paying. The non-payment campaign and a lot of demonstrations, involving both groups, defeated the tax. Industrial action would have been preferable but it didn't happen. Lessons are learned from experience. This is "scientific" rather than "utopian" campaigning.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't know whether or not this "poll tax" was unjust, but I'm not happy with these factions urging gov't employees to defy at least putatively legal laws if there were lawful means of seeking the tax's abolition. Carried to its logical extent, that can only mean anarchy and chaos. I would not call this kind of political activity "scientific." Rather it was the exerting of pressure sufficient to force the tax's abolition.
Sean
Sean,
Poul Anderson raises the question whether any kind of scientific approach is possible to society as a whole. At present, society is very divided. Only groups with aims that conflict with the aims of others can try to analyze society and act accordingly. This practical question of how to campaign against legislation widely seen as unfair is my only experience of this kind of analysis and action. (Large crowds of local people were noisily disrupting city council meetings.) The point is that predictions are made, actions are taken, consequences are analyzed and, hopefully, lessons are learned. It is the nearest I can come in practice to learning about and influencing social interactions. No doubt, if I held a high position in government administration or a corporation, then my perspective would be very different - but I would in that case be trying to implement policies that did not exacerbate already existing social conflicts.
Paul.
The Psychotechnic books were written in a period of extreme optimism about the possibilities of predicting the actions of large complex systems.
It was also a period that tended to fetishize masses and statistics; in Science Fictional terms, this produced Asimov's "Seldonian" historical analysis and so forth.
But even Asimov had a wild card -- the mutation that produced the Mule -- throwing the predictions off.
Later on chaos theory helped spread a realization that very small causes can produce very large consequences; and the repeated failures of computer modeling showed that complex systems -- especially ones involving human beings -- were simply too complex to comprehend. There's never enough data, and even more so there's never enough capacity to analyze what you already have.
Hence the discrediting of large centralized bureaucracies of the type so predominant (and popular) in the first half of the twentieth century.
Mr Stirling,
Yes! This explains changes in society and in sf at the same time.
Anderson showed limitations in "psychotechnics" from the very beginning. He had a much better grasp of social complexities than Asimov.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Lawfully trying to reverse legislation or gov't policies? Yes, that is fine. Noisily or even violently disrupting city council meetings? No, that is bad. I can't agree with that.
Mr. Stirling: Exactly! Your comments explains better than I have done why I simply can't accept the validity of Asimovian "psychohistory" or Andersonian "psychotechnics." And I agree with Paul that Anderson's skepticism about such thing shows he had a much better grasp of social and political complexities than did Asimov.
Sean
Sean,
Two points about mass disruption of council meetings: Does it show that there is a major conflict in society? Undoubtedly. Is it right to participate in such disruptions? OK, that question is by its nature unavoidably controversial.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The mere fact city councils are elective, open to candidates from any political party, shows attempts are being made to handle those "social conflicts." And if you don't like a councilor, vote for someone you approve of instead. I can't agree that disorderly, noisy, and potentially violent disruptions of city council meetings are RIGHT.
Sean
Post a Comment